JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the award dated 11.03.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chomu, District Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,70,000/- to the claimants-appellants, the claimants-appellants have still approached this Court. 2. Shortly the facts of the case are that on 30.10.2008 around 12 O'clock in the afternoon, Mukesh @ Kailash Chand Sharma was walking to his home from Alisar. When he reached near Navodi Dahani, a tractor, bearing registration No. RJ-14-2R-1454, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit him. Consequently, Mukesh sustained grievous injuries and died. Since the claimants-appellants lost the sole bread earner of the family, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. The respondent-Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made therein. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues. In support of their case the claimants-appellants, examined two witnesses and exhibited thirteen documents. On the other hand, the respondents did not produce any evidence. After going through the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, vide award dated 11.03.2010, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation as aforementioned. According to the appellants, since the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is a meager one, they have filed this appeal before this Court. 3. Mr. Lokesh Parihar, the learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that the learned Tribunal was not justified in taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum. According to the claimants, the deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month from selling of milk. Secondly, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of R.S.R.T.C. v. Bakhtawari & Ors. [2005 RAR 30 (Raj.)], to raise the plea that in case of a person running business of sheeps and goats, this Court had taken his income to be Rs. 4,000/- per month, therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in taking the notional income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/- per annum. He has further relied upon the case of Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Sarojamma and Anr. [ 2008 ACJ 1619 , in order to argue that in the case of a tutor, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken his salary to be Rs. 3,000/- per month. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. [ 2008 ACJ 1619 , in order to argue that in the case of a tutor, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken his salary to be Rs. 3,000/- per month. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. According to the learned Tribunal, although the claimants had stated that the Mukesh was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month, but they did not produce any evidence to show that he was in the business of selling milk. Moreover, they could not produce any documentary evidence to show that he was, in fact, earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. Since they could neither establish the work in which he has engaged, nor prove the income actually earned by him, the learned Tribunal had taken the notional income as Rs. 15,000/- per annum. 5. There is a vast difference between stating a fact and proving the fact. Merely because a statement has been made by a party, it cannot be taken as a gospel truth until and unless the statement is backed by some evidence, either oral or documentary. Therefore, it was incumbent on the claimants to establish the fact that the deceased was actually working and he was, in fact, earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. Since they could not establish the said fact, the Tribunal was faced with a case where the income of the deceased was unknown. 6. The concept of notional income has been invented to meet out a few contingencies : where the income of the victim is either unknown, or has not been proven, or from the facts it emerges that the victim was unemployed, either because of his age or otherwise. In order to meet out such situation, a legal fiction has been created about the "deemed income" of the victim. In the present case, the learned Tribunal was faced with a case where Mukesh's income could not be proved. Thus, the Tribunal had no other option, but to take the notional income into account. Hence, the learned Tribunal was justified in taking the notional income as Rs. 15,000/- per annum. 7. The learned counsel has relied upon the case of Bakhtawari & Ors. (Supra) and on the case of Sarojamma and Anr. (Supra) to buttress his contention that since in the case of animal husbandry, this Court has taken the income to be Rs. Hence, the learned Tribunal was justified in taking the notional income as Rs. 15,000/- per annum. 7. The learned counsel has relied upon the case of Bakhtawari & Ors. (Supra) and on the case of Sarojamma and Anr. (Supra) to buttress his contention that since in the case of animal husbandry, this Court has taken the income to be Rs. 4,000/- and in the case of tutor, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the income to be Rs. 3,000/- per month, therefore, in the present case, this Court should take his income at least as Rs. 3,000/- per month. However, such an argument is highly misplaced. For, in catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly proclaimed that precedents cannot be treated as provision of a statute. Each case has to be adjudicated upon the particular facts of the case. Therefore, inference from a judgment is not permissible. Therefore, his reliance on the above mentioned cases does not rendered any assistance to the learned counsel for the appellants. 8. Thus, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******